Subject: [TLS] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:22:22 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am happy to see this published, but have a few minor comments:

- I agree with Alexey's comments.

-3.4: "If the TLSA record set was synthesized by a DNS wildcard, the chain
   must include the signed NSEC or NSEC3 records that prove that there
   was no explicit match of the TLSA record name and no closer wildcard
   match."

Should that "must" be a "MUST"?

- Nit in Authors List: Unless I've missed something, Richard's affiliation is
no longer current. (I only point it out in case it's an oversight; I have no
objection if it's that way on purpose.)

---

From: Shumon Huque <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 21:09:11 -0500

> draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension-06: Yes

Yup, addressed previously in email ..

> Should that "must" be a "MUST"?

Yes, thanks for catching that.

> objection if it's that way on purpose.)

I'll let Richard chime in ..

Shumon